If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Congratulations are in order to Vargas Turbo Tech as well as Cobb tuning and ProTuning Freaks for raising the bar as to what the BMW N54 inline-6 twin turbo motor is capable of. There are two platform records here the first of which it is important to note was achieved without methanol injection. There are certain tuners on the N54 platform that mask their ability to upgrade and control the stock fueling system and any fueling issues are "solved" by dumping in a ton of methanol.

Well, with no meth and the cars own fuel system (with High Pressure Fuel Pump tweaks courtesy of Vargas Turbo Tech) responsible for all the fueling 673 wheel horsepower was achieved in STD correction on a Dynojet. That is a record for horsepower on the platform without methanol injection and was done with a blend of MS109 fuel and 93 octane.

Meth injection was then added and the figures rose to 693 wheel horsepower. If more time was available for the parties involved including Josh at Cobb as well as Jake and Dzeeno at ProTuning Freaks the 700 wheel barrier likely would have been crossed. This will happen sooner rather than later now but this is still a major milestone and a new era the N54 is entering. The motor is finally starting to mature and although it is not on a comparable power level yet with the top BMW aftermarket options this is a huge step step forward for a platform that spent considerable time in limbo due to fueling and tuning issues.

It must be satisfying for all involved especially Vargas Turbo who was doubted by many early on due to being a fresh entrant on the N54 tuning scene with many fanboys blindly following another tuner providing a turbo upgrade. Vargas Turbo Tech, Cobb, and PTF have surprisingly quickly surpassed the results from a competing turbo kit that uses a single turbo setup and have done so without relying on meth injection band-aids. A true fueling upgrade is here as well as a turbo upgrade making some serious power and setting the standard.

Congratulations and much respect to all the parties involved, dyno graphs and videos are below.

ALMS is not a good example of M3 engine superiority because at the end of the day they are all just handicap racing just like thoughbred race horses.

Some examples in different series

Series organizer Stephane Ratel turned to the FIA, which put the matter in the hands of its technical consultant Peter Wright. Wright came up with a system that would allow fair competition between the cars. With Steffan Kosuch of DATAS, the performance of the Maserati was mapped, and then used real track data to equalize the cars. Air restrictor sizes were a key part of the equation, as was weight and, if the results still favored one car over another, the volume of fuel carried could also be changed. If, over two races, we see anything more than a half-second difference between the cars, then we act, Wright said at the time. We can generally get them to within a quarter of a second of each other.

In the World Touring Car Championship  contested by Chevrolet, BMW, SEAT and Alfa Romeo  balance of performance used rev limits and weight handicaps. An FIA Bureau was set up, and new measures were being issued at each race. Balance of Performance had to accommodate saloon cars with hatchbacks, front-wheel drive with rear-wheel drive, H-pattern gearboxes with sequential, and most controversially, diesel power with gasoline.

Omg lol. Long stroke is for high VE, that's what stroker kits are for. Short stroke for rpm. People buy gt3 and Porsches for racing, not necessarily quarter mile or high power. Displacement has nothing to do with high VE...

And stop accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, when they do, or you look dense. The m3 is not the best engine ever, nor is the lsx, nor is the n54. They all serve a purpose to someone. And I'm done.

By response I meant low end torque, power responsiveness, not how quickly it revs. From a throttle response point of view the M's are great. Porsche comes close. Sport bikes destroy them all. Still not sure how this is pertinent to anything really, I digress.

How quickly something revs though is NOT what responsiveness is - nor is low end torque a measure of response. How quickly the revs sweep the dash is a function of gearing. How quickly the engine reacts to you pressing on the "gas" - that's responsiveness. Whereas there is lag on any engine (even NA) - the S motors are leap years ahead of most. Motorcycle engines are not even close either - I have had an R6 (fuel injected and buddy had carb - drove both) - which had a .6 liter engine making 120 HP at 14000ish RPMs (going off memory here) - but the throttle response wasn't near any NA M series I have driven either. And "low end torque" (at the crank)? Forget about it... Was it ridiculously quick? Yep. Could it pull from down low well? Yep. Could it sweep from idle to 14,000 RPM quicker than my S65 could? Yep. However, when I twist the throttle - did it respond like an S54 or S65? NO.

Regarding low-end torque, the S65 makes 80% of peak torque from 2,000 RPM to redline. You make torque to the ground with gearing. Again - look at the C5 Z06 vs. the S65 powered M3 - yes, the LS makes more torque at the crank, but cannot use aggressive gearing due to it's relatively low redline. Basically, the S65 - to the ground makes more torque than the Z06 in 1st gear and matches it in 2nd.

Omg lol. Long stroke is for high VE, that's what stroker kits are for. Short stroke for rpm. People buy gt3 and Porsches for racing, not necessarily quarter mile or high power. Displacement has nothing to do with high VE...

And stop accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, when they do, or you look dense. The m3 is not the best engine ever, nor is the lsx, nor is the n54. They all serve a purpose to someone. And I'm done.

VE is not completely defendant on stroke - or vice versa, you know this right? You can have higher VE in an engine with less stroke than another - or vice versa. I am not sure what you are trying to say here - but depending on many factors, you may want to design an engine to be under-square (S54) or over-square (S65)... They are both high revving engines - and both have a very similar torque curve and VE.

VE is not completely defendant on stroke - or vice versa, you know this right? You can have higher VE in an engine with less stroke than another - or vice versa. I am not sure what you are trying to say here - but depending on many factors, you may want to design an engine to be under-square (S54) or over-square (S65)... They are both high revving engines - and both have a very similar torque curve and VE.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say, engine VE is based on many things. Generally, for high rpm you decrease stroke. High VE, you increase stroke. Among many many other things from head design, cam timing for dynamic compression, scavenging, it's not related to displacement vs hp like sticky said "HP per liter on a 4.0 liter V8 shows high volumetric efficiency", VE is just the amount of air the engine pumps vs the theoretical maximum. Power output comes from more than that, fuel, timing, rpm... it's a general trend for na but not everything, like you said.

For throttle response you're right. The S engines are a dream. The most responsive thing I've ever seen for throttle response was a sprint car running with ITB's on methanol. I've mentioned before how I used to race those. I really, really doubt any S engine can compare to that, look them up and tell me otherwise if I'm misguided. I raced the world of outlaws mini sprints at the shop I worked at, my opinions are from experience. But throttle response under free revving is also highly dependent on things other than VE as well, rotating assembly mass being one of them.

Your previous post was very informative though. I have experience with only stock S engines, which are great, but I'd stop short of saying they are the "best" of what I've encountered. But unlike sticky, I'm perfectly ok with admitting I don't know, and haven't driven, everything.

Not a simple comparison in ALMS, they "equalize" the cars and deliberately slow down fast cars via ballast and restrictors. There's not really any question that in a no-limits format the LSx engines are just flat out superior to the S65.

You mean for flat out power potential, of course. I mean the displacement would be the limiting factor.

That doesn't change the fact the Vettes are racing with more displacement and have lost to the BMW's with less displacement, right?

It isn't as one dimensional as max aftermarket power or torque. Idiotic.

How quickly something revs though is NOT what responsiveness is - nor is low end torque a measure of response.

I'm amazed this even needs to be explained. Guy brings up torque in relation to throttle response... wow.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Regarding low-end torque, the S65 makes 80% of peak torque from 2,000 RPM to redline. You make torque to the ground with gearing. Again - look at the C5 Z06 vs. the S65 powered M3 - yes, the LS makes more torque at the crank, but cannot use aggressive gearing due to it's relatively low redline. Basically, the S65 - to the ground makes more torque than the Z06 in 1st gear and matches it in 2nd.

For some reason when I posted I was thinking response and low end torque, you know, the feeling of engine response when you hit the gas. Achievable by gearing, torque, etc. I was wrong to call those things "response" as in free rev throttle response. And I know better, so I apologize for that. Already admitted that, but thank you anyways for being so kind to contributors in your forum and choosing your words so maturely and respectfully.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Yes, road racing where the S65 V8 shines and you boil it down to max torque or HP for high power as if that is sign of engine design or response? Stupid as I said it was.

Agreed, the S65 V8 shines for road racing. Power, torque, gearing (yes sticky, commonly overlooked in relation to engine RPM), and tuning make a car responsive to pushing the throttle down when it's in gear. Not when it's free revving though, which is what response technically is. Again, I was wrong, although I hate to use that word because I damn well know what response is, I was just thinking of something else. So please sticky, hang me out over a fire to feed your own ego. Either way, free revving response alone has absolutely nothing to do with if a car is good for anything other than wrapping up quickly. Although it is fun as hell.

I read the whole article. There was a lot of really good and well researched information, good comparisons, etc I gotta hand it to you.

But I also now know where you stand now. I don't think I've ever seen somebody so taken by the S54 and S65 in my life. So it makes sense why you would jump all over others for saying neither is gods gift to automotive enthusiasts. I mean you were contradictory in your article anyway, you say how the S65 is the last true M engine that was pure M, and then you say it was detuned from the factory stroke wise and used recycled V10 bits. Doesn't sound like a S54 or "true" enthusiast/no hold barred engine to me. And you applaud iron blocks in the S54 and then applaud aluminum blocks in the S65. You even understand the benefits/limitations and yet whichever one the engine came with is just better in your eyes because BMW "M" chose it. But that's a logical argument so it's not relevant to the way you debate.

Originally Posted by Sticky

When you start looking like you know what you are talking about I'll stop telling you that you don't.

Don't worry, to you I'm sure everybody looks like they have no idea what they are talking about

It's not worth spending my time debating this with you. Because in the end, you aren't interested in a debate or a discussion. You are interested in name calling.